Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Absent an absolute authority, who is to say what anything is.


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Laws do.  And even though these things do not "compel," anyone, they are not being used by Latter-day Saints relative to the title of "Elder."  So there really isn't symmetry between behavior relative to "Elder" and relative to preferred pronouns, IMO.

You are changing the topic. My point is that it is rude not to call people "Elder" who prefer that title, and it is rude not to use the pronouns that people prefer. Whether or not Mormons tolerate rudeness better than people who prefer alternate pronouns is a different topic.

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

AFAIK, there are no Latter-day Saints trying to use the force of law to coerce the use of "Elder," or to impose fines and/or criminal punishment for failing to use that word, or have such non-use characterized as "hate speech" or "harassment" under the law.

Not only were these various examples off topic--they aren't examples of what you claim...

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Baloney.  See above.  Scotland.

Here is Scotland's law on hate crimes. It gives the same protections of discrimination on the basis of gender identity that it does to race and religion. It has an explicit "Protection of Freedom of Expression" clause. It doesn't mandate the use of preferred pronouns.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

  Norway. 

Your article said, "Norway’s parliament outlawed hate speech against transgender people on Tuesday..."

Note that Norway already had a hate speech law against religious people, people of different races, etc. They just slightly expanded it to include trangender people, too. How come you've never complained about Norway having hate speech laws protecting religious people?

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Canada. 

Your link was about a change to the Ontario Human Rights Code. The code protects people on certain protected grounds, but only within protected areas. Specifically:

Protected grounds are:

  • Age
  • Ancestry, colour, race
  • Citizenship
  • Ethnic origin
  • Place of origin
  • Creed
  • Disability
  • Family status
  • Marital status (including single status)
  • Gender identity, gender expression
  • Receipt of public assistance (in housing only)
  • Record of offences (in employment only)
  • Sex (including pregnancy and breastfeeding)
  • Sexual orientation.

Protected social areas are:

  • Accommodation (housing)
  • Contracts
  • Employment
  • Goods, services and facilities
  • Membership in unions, trade or professional associations

It's unsurprising that you never complained about Canada protecting human rights based on religion, but now you complain about Canada protecting human rights based on gender identity.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

New York.

This is similar to Ontario. New York added gender identity to their Human Rights Law. It now protects people based on gender identity, just as it protects people based on race or religion. 

Why are you upset that transgender people get the same protection as religious people?

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Virginia. 

Technically, Louden County Public Schools (LCPS). The school board decided that "Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) is committed to providing an equitable, safe and inclusive learning environment for all students. All students shall be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, transgender status, or gender identity/expression." This means that:

Quote

LCPS staff shall allow gender-expansive or transgender students to use their chosen name and gender pronouns that reflect their consistently asserted gender identity without any substantiating evidence, regardless of the name and gender recorded in the student’s permanent educational record. School staff shall, at the request of a student or parent/legal guardian, when using a name or pronoun to address the student, use the name and pronoun that correspond to their consistently asserted gender identity. The use of gender-neutral pronouns is appropriate.

Inadvertent slips in the use of names or pronouns may occur; however, staff or students who intentionally and persistently refuse to respect a student’s gender identity by using the wrong name and gender pronoun are in violation of this policy.

To me, this is an example of adjudicating two rights that conflict with each other. Which right is more important? The right of a school teacher to "persistently refuse to respect a student's gender identity," or the right of a student to be respected? In this case, I believe the right of the student to be respected is higher than the right of the teacher to scorn students because of their gender identity. 

Personally, I'm glad the students in Lauden are protected from people like you who would use their positions as teachers to disparage the gender identity of students.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I find it noteworthy that nowhere in your summary of California's effort to coerce speech do you actually, you know, say that you were or are opposed to it.

I am opposed to staff members at nursing homes using their position to be rude, insulting, and cruel to the people they are being paid to take care of.

And I'm opposed to you misrepresenting the very limited context of the law.

When judging the rights of a staff member of a nursing home to be abusive versus the rights of the fragile resident of the nursing home not to be abused, I would have stuck up for the residents.

Edited by Analytics
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Obehave said:

None of what you are saying takes into consideration the fact that people can be wrong when identifying their own or someone else's gender identity. 

Let me refer you again to what the dictionary says:

"Definition of gender identity: a person's internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female."

Gender identity Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

That's the definition, and it has nothing to do with whether or not they are "wrong" identifying their own identity. Rather, it is what their "internal sense" is, regardless of whether it is right or "wrong."

You are committed to using the English language correctly, right?

3 hours ago, Obehave said:

A person who is biologically male can misidentify himself as being a woman, which he isn't.

Your solution to that problem seems to be to just agree with whatever he says he is.  If he says he is a woman, it seems you would simply say Okay, he says he is so he must be and I will refer to him as her from now on. I would say he is wrong and explain why. 

It depends upon what we're talking about. If we are talking about biological sex, it is what it is. The actual biology of sex is more nuanced than you imagine, but ultimately, the biological classifications are what they are.

But "gender identity" is talking about your internal sense of the world, not about the nature of your gonads. Just as your biological sex is what it is, regardless of how you feel about it, your gender identity is what it is, regardless of the nature of your 23rd pair of chromosomes.

As I showed above, according to the dictionary, you can correctly use she/her pronouns to somebody who has a female gender identity.

If you want to be polite and speak correct English, you should use the pronouns somebody prefers.

 

Edited by Analytics
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Yes.  I understand the definition and the idea involved.  A biological male may identify his gender as female or feminine.  I get that.  Yes, he may do that. I would simply say he is wrong to identify his gender that way because biologically he is male.

According to the definition of "gender identity", whether or not your are biologically a male is irrelevant.

I keep pushing this because previously, you said you were committed to using the English language correctly, as codified in the dictionary. I take it now that you see the dictionary really doesn't support your position on pronouns, you no longer see the dictionary as being authoritative?

10 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Can you accept the idea that your internal sense of self can be wrong?

I'm not sure what "wrong" means in this context, but sure.

10 minutes ago, Obehave said:

  That you can think you are right when you really are wrong, and you can think you are something which you really are not?

Of course. For example, you can think you are a literal descendent of a mythical Israelite named Ephraim, but you're not. You can think you have special priesthood power, but you don't. There are lots of things you are wrong about.

But using the English language in a way to constantly emphasize that I think you are deluded about these things would be rude.

10 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Not when I can see they are wrong.  I don't believe I should affirm that someone is something they really are not. 

Pronouns are not a way to affirm whether or not you think somebody's gender identity conforms to their biological sex and/or their spirit sex. They are simply a way to refer to somebody without overusing other types of nouns. 

When you refer to a transgender woman as "she," you are not saying you think her spirit and/or biological sex is female. Rather, you are acknowledging that she prefers to be referred to by the pronoun "she" and you are respectfully conforming to that.

When I call a missionary "Elder Smith" I'm not implying that I think the Melchizedek priesthood is a real thing. I'm not acknowledging that I'm dealing with somebody that has literally been called by God to be His official and authorized representative. I'm just being polite.

You are totally free to die on this hill. But (giving Smac some fodder to castigate me) people who are hellbent on being rude in this way shouldn't be in positions of power over others (e.g. they shouldn't be k-12 school teachers and shouldn't be on the staff of nursing homes). We need respectful people in those positions.

 

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote
Quote
Quote

 

And yet the Latter-day Saints are not attempting to use demands, insults, the force of law, etc. to compel anyone to use the word "Elder."

Quite a difference, that.

 

"Demands" and "insults" don't compel anyone to be polite to other human beings, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. 

Laws do.  And even though these things do not "compel," anyone, they are not being used by Latter-day Saints relative to the title of "Elder."  So there really isn't symmetry between behavior relative to "Elder" and relative to preferred pronouns, IMO.

You are changing the topic.

Not really.  

49 minutes ago, Analytics said:

My point is that it is rude not to call people "Elder" who prefer that title, and it is rude not to use the pronouns that people prefer.

Sort of.  I can think of all sorts of instances when "rudeness" is not really part of the equation.

If my "preferred pronoun" substitutes for "you" and "him" and "his" are "My Master," "His Excellency" and "The Great One's," I really doubt you would go along with it.  You would come up with something like "Well, he's not being serious," or "He's just saying these are his pronouns in order to score rhetorical points," etc.  But you then run the risk of inviting scrutiny of "preferred pronouns" for other people, along with strained explanations as to why their "preferences" are beyond question or critique where my "preferences" are not.

In short, your response would be an exercise in special pleading, ad hominem, equivocation, No True Scotsman, appeal to guilt (you're doing this one already), and probably a few more.

49 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Whether or not Mormons tolerate rudeness better than people who prefer alternate pronouns is a different topic.

Um, you said: "Coming from a Latter-day Saint this attitude is ironic, and maybe a bit hypocritical."  (Emphasis added.)

You raised the issue, dude.

49 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

AFAIK, there are no Latter-day Saints trying to use the force of law to coerce the use of "Elder," or to impose fines and/or criminal punishment for failing to use that word, or have such non-use characterized as "hate speech" or "harassment" under the law.

Not only were these various examples off topic--they aren't examples of what you claim...

They are not off-topic, as they are responsive to your allegation of "hypocrisy."  And they sure seem to be "examples of what {I} claim," which is that your side of the debate is big into coercion, whereas the Latter-day Saints are neither being "hypocritical" nor are they resorting to the methods your side of the debate is using.

49 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Here is Scotland's law on hate crimes. It gives the same protections of discrimination on the basis of gender identity that it does to race and religion. It has an explicit "Protection of Freedom of Expression" clause. It doesn't mandate the use of preferred pronouns.

Looks like there was some revisions to it.  Glad to see it.

Less glad that such revisions and protections from folks like you are becoming necessary in the first instance.

49 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Your article said, "Norway’s parliament outlawed hate speech against transgender people on Tuesday..."

Note that Norway already had a hate speech law against religious people, people of different races, etc. They just slightly expanded it to include trangender people, too. How come you've never complained about Norway having hate speech laws protecting religious people?

It's never come up.

And I can't help but wonder if "hate speech laws protecting religious people" are distinguishable from the "compelled speech" issue I have raised.  

And I'm really impressed that you are so laser-focused on civility and avoiding "rudeness."  I mean, it perfectly reflects the reality of you never having said anything that could reasonably be construed as "rude" or disparaging of the Latter-day Saints and their faith.  Nope!  No "hypocrisy" there.  At all.  Not even a smidge.

49 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Your link was about a change to the Ontario Human Rights Code. The code protects people on certain protected grounds, but only within protected areas. Specifically:

Protected grounds are:

  • Age
  • Ancestry, colour, race
  • Citizenship
  • Ethnic origin
  • Place of origin
  • Creed
  • Disability
  • Family status
  • Marital status (including single status)
  • Gender identity, gender expression
  • Receipt of public assistance (in housing only)
  • Record of offences (in employment only)
  • Sex (including pregnancy and breastfeeding)
  • Sexual orientation.

Protected social areas are:

  • Accommodation (housing)
  • Contracts
  • Employment
  • Goods, services and facilities
  • Membership in unions, trade or professional associations

It's unsurprising that you never complained about Canada protecting human rights based on religion, but now you complain about Canada protecting human rights based on gender identity.

Again, I question whether "protecting human rights based on religion" involves compelled speech.  If so, then I oppose it.

As it is, however, to my knowledge nobody has ever brought this topic up.  Kinda weird to fault me for failing to respond to a topic that has never been presented.  And now that I have responded, and have expressed disagreement with laws that purport to protect "human rights" by compelling/coercing other people to say things they don't want to say . . . 

49 minutes ago, Analytics said:

This is similar to Ontario. New York added gender identity to their Human Rights Law. It now protects people based on gender identity, just as it protects people based on race or religion. 

Why are you upset that transgender people get the same protection as religious people?

I'm not upset.

And I'm not persuaded that the "same protection" is in play.  

Again, I am opposed to laws compelling speech, including where such laws are intended to "protect" religious people.

49 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Technically, Louden County Public Schools (LCPS). The school board decided that "Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) is committed to providing an equitable, safe and inclusive learning environment for all students. All students shall be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, transgender status, or gender identity/expression." This means that:

To me, this is an example of adjudicating two rights that conflict with each other. Which right is more important? The right of a school teacher to "persistently refuse to respect a student's gender identity," or the right of a student to be respected?

In this case, I believe the right of the student to be respected is higher than the right of the teacher to scorn students because of their gender identity. 

Golly, no deck-stacking there.

The contest is between A) Free Speech - the teacher's right to not be compelled to speak things he does not want to speak  - and B) "the right of a student" to coerce others to use words those others do not want to speak.

One is a constitutional right, one is not.  I'll let you guess which is which.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Obehave said:

Hereafter please refer to me by requested name (for you and Raingirl only)  "Lord Obehave Grand Master Of All Things Good And As Intelligent And Loving As I Hope To Be Someday" on weekdays, AND "Almighty God" on Sundays.

When we meet in person so I can make sure these names apply. ;) No, I'll call you anything you want.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
6 hours ago, smac97 said:

You cut that out now, or you'll go home in an ambulance."

Zoey Tur's ultimatum sure sounds compulsory/coercive.  If a substantially large and muscular man (that is, a biological male) grabs a notably smaller person by the back of the neck and says "You stop doing X, or you'll go home in an ambulance," I think the average smaller person would reasonably feel compelled/coerced, under threat of imminent and severe physical violence, to stop doing X.  Do you disagree?  

I have never heard of a Latter-day Saint missionary saying something like "You better call me 'elder,' or you'll go home in an ambulance" or "I approve of curb-stomping anyone who refuses to call me 'elder.'"

Zoey Tur did these things.  And while everyone on the panel had plenty to say about Ben Shapiro being "rude," none of them uttered a peep when Tur physically grabbed Shapiro's neck and told him "You cut that out now, or you'll go home in an ambulance," nor did they say anying when Tur told Shapiro that he (Shapiro) is "consumed with hatred" and is "a little man" and a "little boy."  And while the panel got upset in a hurry when Shapiro referenced genetics, none of them had anything to say when Tur did so ("You have a thing like Klinefelter’s syndrome...").

Also, as far as I can tell, Zoey Tur totally got away with both the battery (grabbing Shapiro by the neck) and the assault (threatening to send him "home in an ambulance").  Nothing says "I'm oppressed!" like being able to commit assault and battery, have it captured on video and in front of numerous witnesses, and still get away with it.

Zoey Tur, check your privilege! ;) 

And has been pointed out since that incident, Zoey Tur was, at the same time, threatening and incoherent, as nobody ever goes home in an ambulance. 😆 

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And has been pointed out since that incident, Zoey Tur was, at the same time, threatening and incoherent, as nobody ever goes home in an ambulance. 😆 

I had not heard of the Tur incident and maybe you are just joking and being intentionally inaccurate for the joke, but just in case you aren’t….Ambulances are used in non emergency transfers of people who need extra care quite often.  I know residents of my mother’s assisted living home were on occasion brought home by ambulance.  Reading the materials of ambulance companies that offer non emergency transport, some are transported in ambulances for medical appointments to and from home. (Doublechecked I didn’t imagine or misremembered when ambulances brought residents back and homes were listed alongside nursing homes/care facilities).

Just in case someone sometime might need the service…

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Thinking back on my mission, I’m sure there were numerous — nay, countless — times  when folks failed to address me with the title Elder (or, in the Swedish, äldste).  I never thought anything at all about it, but I can say with certainty I never regarded it as rude. The notion of doing so strikes me as, well, a bit bizarre. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Calm said:

I had not heard of the Tur incident and maybe you are just joking and being intentionally inaccurate for the joke, but just in case you aren’t….Ambulances are used in non emergency transfers of people who need extra care quite often.  I know residents of my mother’s assisted living home were on occasion brought home by ambulance.  Reading the materials of ambulance companies that offer non emergency transport, some are transported in ambulances for medical appointments to and from home. (Doublechecked I didn’t imagine or misremembered when ambulances brought residents back and homes were listed alongside nursing homes/care facilities).

Just in case someone sometime might need the service…

Does anyone ever “go home in an ambulance” after being beaten up or intentionally and severely injured, as Tur threatened to do to Ben Shapiro?

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, Calm said:

… maybe you are just joking and being intentionally inaccurate for the joke, but just in case you aren’t. …

You were probably unaware of my newly announced preference when you composed this post, so I will provide a mild correction:

Maybe your eminence is just joking and being intentionally inaccurate for the joke, but just in case your eminence is not. …

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Does anyone ever “go home in an ambulance” after being beaten up or intentionally and severely injured, as Tur threatened to do to Ben Shapiro?

Maybe they do if severely injured. Not everyone recovers from a beating and some have been paralyzed. 
 

But I shared the info not to argue, but to inform as some may benefit from knowing the service is available, but if they assume it is not, they may not ask about it. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You were probably unaware of my newly announced preference when you composed this post, so I will provide a mild correction:

Maybe your eminence is just joking and being intentionally inaccurate for the joke, but just in case your eminence is not. …

Are you committing to calling others by their preferred pronouns and names?  If so, I will take you seriously if you say you are serious. If you are just telling a joke, I am choosing not to be a part of it.  I don’t find it humorous. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
43 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe they do if severely injured. Not everyone recovers from a beating and some have been paralyzed. 

If you’ve been severely injured, you undoubtedly need to go to an emergency room. If you’re not that badly hurt, you don’t need an ambulance. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
56 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you committing to calling others by their preferred pronouns and names?  If so, I will take you seriously if you say you are serious.

What do you mean by that? Do you mean you’ll comply with my expressed preference?

And why do you require me to conform to your arbitrary quid pro quo as a condition to honoring my preference? Do you make the same demand of others? 
 

By the way, the answer is yes. If any individual on this board requests to be referred to by a specific pronoun, I will try to comply. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What do you mean by that? Do you mean you’ll comply with my expressed preference?

Do you believe it is your true identity or religious office?  Or is it a joke? Would you be willing to do the same for others?  I probably would if you really meant it for yourself and were also willing to accommodate others in similar situations as what does it harm me to do so and I am not your therapist nor has your therapist told me it is damaging to you to call you that. 
 

But I don’t see any interesting humor in it as a joke, even the arrogance is derivative. So not going to play along.  I honestly think it a very stupid joke and I don’t use stupid as a label that often. 

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you believe it is your true identity or religious office?

What? No, I give it no religious meaning. I just like the sound of it. 
 

But if it’s not to your liking, you can use your excellency and his excellency.  I like that just as well. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Obehave said:

This is a derivative of the idea that it is rude and arrogant to not call people what they request to be called. 

It is a justification to be rude and arrogant. It is a childish, uninteresting, condescending joke.  As someone who experiences a form of disconnection to my own body, though not of the gender variety and likely only mild, I find this mocking lacking of any empathy and actual caring for the ones who do experience a gender disconnect and it is just wrong.  There are intelligent, respectful ways of disagreeing, this is not one of them. 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thinking back on my mission, I’m sure there were numerous — nay, countless — times  when folks failed to address me with the title Elder (or, in the Swedish, äldste).  I never thought anything at all about it, but I can say with certainty I never regarded it as rude. The notion of doing so strikes me as, well, a bit bizarre. 

Did any one ever make a big deal about it and interrogate you for your first name so they could call you that? e.g. "I'm not going to call you 'Elder'. That's ridiculous and I'm not going to pretend that I recognize the authority that 'Elder' supposedly represents. What's your real name, Mr. Lloyd? Come on, tell me." 

Edited by Analytics
corrected spelling
Link to comment
19 hours ago, smac97 said:

If I "identify" as a ten-year-old boy, I can dress and behave like one, but that does not make me one.  I cannot alter my chronological age, I cannot alter my birth certificate to reflect my "identity," and so on.

You are equivocating here. When somebody says they "are" a woman, they are saying their gender identity is female, not that their biological sex is female. Gender identity and biological sex are two different things. Making a statement about your gender identity is not making a statement about your biological sex. Stop pretending that it is.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Obehave said:

Right, because a person can identify themselves either correctly or incorrectly.  A biological male identifying himself as female would be an incorrect identification.  He may really feel like he is a female and may really want to be, but he still isn't female.   

Show me you can understand that concept and then we'll see what else we can talk about.

Didn't you say above you were committed to using the correct definitions of words, as codified in standard dictionaries?

According to the dictionary, gender identity is about an individual's internal sense of being male or female, not their biological features. Thus, if one is strictly committed to using dictionary definitions, if somebody feels like a woman on the inside, identifying herself as a male is an incorrect identification, regardless, of her biological features.

Having said that, I know you've abandoned your commitment to dictionary definitions. Speaking more precisely, you believe that if somebody's gender identity is incongruous with their biological sex, their gender identity is "incorrect." That's your personal belief, and it contradicts the dictionary.

You are attempting to highjack the term "gender identity" and make it equivalent to "biological sex."

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I'm not sure what your point is, but I agree that a pig is a pig just as a male is a male and a female is a female. Words have standard definitions that are listed in standard dictionaries.  We need to have some way to know what the meaning of a word truly is.

Okay.  You're absolutely free to not know what my point is.  You may not be alone.  Indeed, you may be in very good company, and perhaps it is a much more sizable crowd than I had imagined.  Cheers! 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Obehave said:

What to you is arrogant and rude about declaring the truth as you see it? You just now declared the truth as you see it and I don't think you were arrogant or rude to do that. Just wrong to say that is arrogant and rude.

A biological male is not a female and should not be referred to with feminine pronouns because feminine pronouns should only be used to refer to females, not males. Or if more than only females at least only as listed in standard dictionaries, considering how ships are sometimes referred to with feminine pronouns.

I think it's very possible for a baby to be born with confusing genders such as those that get assigned a sex. That tells me that someone can most definitely feel they are the wrong sex in their bodies and I will give them the choice because I'd hate to be born in a body I didn't identify with. Same with those that are gay and told they have to love a gender that their soul isn't attracted to or it feels  abnormal. 

What if you were told to love a male sexually and that is the the way it was, how would you feel? Speaking as if you're not gay right now. Or if you're a female, told that you must love another female sexually. See how that feels? Well, that's how gays or trans feel when told they must do something that doesn't jive with their soul or body makeup. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...